Re: SIGQUIT on archiver child processes maybe not such a hot idea?

From: David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com, michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SIGQUIT on archiver child processes maybe not such a hot idea?
Date: 2019-09-03 18:09:18
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 9/3/19 12:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> But now we know that sending it to grand-children is wrong in a
>> sense that that leads to left-alone unwanted core files. But the
>> behavior is already knwon at the time.
>> So, Now I know that we need to revert that in certain extent if
>> we want to stop the core-dumping behavior...
> Yeah. After thinking about this more, I'm inclined to propose that
> we just change what the postmaster does, as per attached patch.
> A couple of questions arise:
> * Would it be better to substitute SIGTERM instead of SIGINT?
> The POSIX default handling is the same for both, but some programs
> might interpret them differently.

I prefer SIGTERM, but FWIW pgBackRest handles them both the same way.


In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fabien COELHO 2019-09-03 18:10:37 Re: refactoring - share str2*int64 functions
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2019-09-03 17:40:14 Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys